TROPHY-U-01, a phase II open-label study of sacituzumab govitecan in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors: updated safety and efficacy outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a Trop-2-directed antibody-drug conjugate containing cytotoxic SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan. SG received accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval for locally advanced (LA) or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor, based on cohort 1 of the TROPHY-U-01 study. Mutations in the uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) gene are associated with increased adverse events (AEs) with irinotecan-based therapies. Whether UGT1A1 status could impact SG toxicity and efficacy remains unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TROPHY-U-01 (NCT03547973) is a multicohort, open-label, phase II registrational study. Cohort 1 includes patients with LA or mUC who progressed after platinum- and checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies. SG was administered at 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per central review; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Post hoc safety analyses were exploratory with descriptive statistics. Updated analyses include longer follow-up. RESULTS: Cohort 1 included 113 patients. At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, ORR was 28% (95% CI 20.2% to 37.6%). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.4 months (95% CI 3.5-6.9 months) and 10.9 months (95% CI 8.9-13.8 months), respectively. Occurrence of grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs and treatment-related discontinuation were consistent with prior reports. UGT1A1 status was wildtype (∗1|∗1) in 40%, heterozygous (∗1|∗28) in 42%, homozygous (∗28|∗28) in 12%, and missing in 6% of patients. In patients with ∗1|∗1, ∗1|∗28, and ∗28|∗28 genotypes, any grade treatment-related AEs occurred in 93%, 94%, and 100% of patients, respectively, and were managed similarly regardless of UGT1A1 status. CONCLUSIONS: With longer follow-up, the ORR remains high in patients with heavily pretreated LA or mUC. Safety data were consistent with the known SG toxicity profile. AE incidence varied across UGT1A1 subgroups; however, discontinuation rates remained relatively low for all groups.

Pemigatinib for metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma with FGF/FGFR genomic alterations: final results from FIGHT-201.

BACKGROUND: Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) alterations are oncogenic drivers of urothelial carcinoma (UC). Pemigatinib is a selective, oral inhibitor of FGFR1-3 with antitumor activity. We report the efficacy and safety of pemigatinib in the open-label, single-arm, phase II study of previously treated, unresectable or metastatic UC with FGFR3 alterations (FIGHT-201; NCT02872714). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with FGFR3 mutations or fusions/rearrangements (cohort A) and other FGF/FGFR alterations (cohort B) were included. Patients received pemigatinib 13.5 mg once daily continuously (CD) or intermittently (ID) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was centrally confirmed objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v1.1 in cohort A-CD. Secondary endpoints included ORR in cohorts A-ID and B, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 260 patients were enrolled and treated (A-CD, n = 101; A-ID, n = 103; B, n = 44; unconfirmed FGF/FGFR status, n = 12). All discontinued treatment, most commonly due to progressive disease (68.5%). ORR [95% confidence interval (CI)] in cohorts A-CD and A-ID was 17.8% (10.9% to 26.7%) and 23.3% (15.5% to 32.7%), respectively. Among patients with the most common FGFR3 mutation (S249C; n = 107), ORR was similar between cohorts (A-CD, 23.9%; A-ID, 24.6%). In cohorts A-CD/A-ID, median (95% CI) DOR was 6.2 (4.1-8.3)/6.2 (4.6-8.0) months, PFS was 4.0 (3.5-4.2)/4.3 (3.9-6.1) months, and OS was 6.8 (5.3-9.1)/8.9 (7.5-15.2) months. Pemigatinib had limited clinical activity among patients in cohort B. Of 36 patients with samples available at progression, 6 patients had 8 acquired FGFR3 secondary resistance mutations (V555M/L, n = 3; V553M, n = 1; N540K/S, n = 2; M528I, n = 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events overall were diarrhea (44.6%) and alopecia, stomatitis, and hyperphosphatemia (42.7% each). CONCLUSIONS: Pemigatinib was generally well tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity in previously treated, unresectable or metastatic UC with FGFR3 mutations or fusions/rearrangements.

Erdafitinib in BCG-treated high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with disease recurrence after bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) treatment and who are ineligible for/refuse radical cystectomy. FGFR alterations are commonly detected in NMIBC. We evaluated the activity of oral erdafitinib, a selective pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, versus intravesical chemotherapy in patients with high-risk NMIBC and select FGFR3/2 alterations following recurrence after BCG treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with recurrent, BCG-treated, papillary-only high-risk NMIBC (high-grade Ta/T1) and select FGFR alterations refusing or ineligible for radical cystectomy were randomized to 6 mg daily oral erdafitinib or investigator's choice of intravesical chemotherapy (mitomycin C or gemcitabine). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). The key secondary endpoint was safety. RESULTS: Study enrollment was discontinued due to slow accrual. Seventy-three patients were randomized 2 : 1 to erdafitinib (n = 49) and chemotherapy (n = 24). Median follow-up for RFS was 13.4 months for both groups. Median RFS was not reached for erdafitinib [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.9 months-not estimable] and was 11.6 months (95% CI 6.4-20.1 months) for chemotherapy, with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.28 (95% CI 0.1-0.6; nominal P value = 0.0008). In this population, safety results were generally consistent with known profiles for erdafitinib and chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib prolonged RFS compared with intravesical chemotherapy in patients with papillary-only, high-risk NMIBC harboring FGFR alterations who had disease recurrence after BCG therapy and refused or were ineligible for radical cystectomy.

Erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab in pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer with select FGFR alterations: cohort 2 of the randomized phase III THOR trial.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib is an oral pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved to treat locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in patients with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations (FGFRalt) who progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy. FGFR-altered tumours are enriched in luminal 1 subtype and may have limited clinical benefit from anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1 [PD-(L)1] treatment. This cohort in the randomized, open-label phase III THOR study assessed erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab in anti-PD-(L)1-naive patients with mUC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years with unresectable advanced/mUC, with select FGFRalt, disease progression on one prior treatment, and who were anti-PD-(L)1-naive were randomized 1 : 1 to receive erdafitinib 8 mg once daily with pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg or pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population (median follow-up 33 months) comprised 175 and 176 patients in the erdafitinib and pembrolizumab arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between erdafitinib and pembrolizumab [median 10.9 versus 11.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.51; P = 0.18]. Median PFS for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab was 4.4 and 2.7 months, respectively (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.70-1.10). ORR was 40.0% and 21.6% (relative risk 1.85; 95% CI 1.32-2.59) and median duration of response was 4.3 and 14.4 months for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab, respectively. 64.7% and 50.9% of patients in the erdafitinib and pembrolizumab arms had ≥1 grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs); 5 (2.9%) and 12 (6.9%) patients, respectively, had AEs that led to death. CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib and pembrolizumab had similar median OS in this anti-PD-(L)1-naive, FGFR-altered mUC population. Outcomes with pembrolizumab were better than assumed and aligned with previous reports in non- FGFR-altered populations. Safety results were consistent with the known profiles for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab in this patient population.

Long term activity of vemurafenib in cancers with BRAF mutations: the ACSE basket study for advanced cancers other than BRAFV600-mutated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: BRAF inhibitors are approved in BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD), and thyroid cancer. We report here the efficacy, safety, and long-term results of single-agent vemurafenib given in the AcSé vemurafenib basket study to patients with various BRAF-mutated advanced tumours other than BRAFV600-mutated melanoma and NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced tumours other than BRAFV600E melanoma and progressing after standard treatment were eligible for inclusion in nine cohorts (including a miscellaneous cohort) and received oral vemurafenib 960 mg two times daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) estimated with a Bayesian design. The secondary outcomes were disease control rate, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and vemurafenib safety. RESULTS: A total of 98 advanced patients with various solid or haematological cancers, 88 with BRAFV600 mutations and 10 with BRAFnonV600 mutations, were included. The median follow-up duration was 47.7 months. The Bayesian estimate of ORR was 89.7% in hairy cell leukaemias (HCLs), 33.3% in the glioblastomas cohort, 18.2% in cholangiocarcinomas, 80.0% in ECD, 50.0% in ovarian cancers, 50.0% in xanthoastrocytomas, 66.7% in gangliogliomas, and 60.0% in sarcomas. The median PFS of the whole series was 8.8 months. The 12-, 24-, and 36-month PFS rates were 42.2%, 23.8%, and 17.9%, respectively. Overall, 54 patients died with a median OS of 25.9 months, with a projected 4-year OS of 40%. Adverse events were similar to those previously reported with vemurafenib. CONCLUSION: Responses and prolonged PFS were observed in many tumours with BRAF mutations, including HCL, ECD, ovarian carcinoma, gliomas, ganglioglioma, and sarcomas. Although not all cancer types responded, vemurafenib is an agnostic oncogene therapy of cancers.

EV-301 long-term outcomes: 24-month findings from the phase III trial of enfortumab vedotin versus chemotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: This exploratory analysis evaluated efficacy and safety data for enfortumab vedotin versus chemotherapy over a median follow-up of ∼2 years from EV-301. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma with prior platinum-containing chemotherapy and disease progression during/after programmed cell death protein 1/ligand 1 inhibitor treatment were randomized to enfortumab vedotin or chemotherapy (docetaxel, paclitaxel, vinflunine). Endpoints were overall survival (primary), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response, and safety. RESULTS: In total, 608 patients were included (enfortumab vedotin, n = 301; chemotherapy, n = 307). With a median follow-up of 23.75 months, 444 deaths had occurred (enfortumab vedotin, n = 207; chemotherapy, n = 237). Risk of death was reduced by 30% with enfortumab vedotin versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.85); one-sided, log-rank P = 0.00015]; PFS improved with enfortumab vedotin [HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.53-0.76); one-sided, log-rank P < 0.00001]. Treatment-related adverse event rates were 93.9% for enfortumab vedotin and 91.8% for chemotherapy; grade ≥ 3 event rates were 52.4% and 50.5%, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related decreased neutrophil count (14.1% versus 6.1%), decreased white blood cell count (7.2% versus 1.4%), and anemia (7.9% versus 2.7%) were more common with chemotherapy versus enfortumab vedotin; maculopapular rash (7.4% versus 0%), fatigue (6.8% versus 4.5%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (5.1% versus 2.1%) were more common with enfortumab vedotin. Of special interest adverse events, treatment-related skin reactions occurred in 47.3% of patients receiving enfortumab vedotin and 15.8% of patients receiving chemotherapy; peripheral neuropathy occurred in 48.0% versus 31.6%, respectively, and hyperglycemia in 6.8% versus 0.3%. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of ∼2 years, enfortumab vedotin maintained clinically meaningful overall survival benefit versus chemotherapy, consistent with findings from the EV-301 primary analysis; PFS and overall response benefit remained consistent. Adverse events were manageable; no new safety signals were observed.

Infections occurring following IL6 blockade for the management of cytokine release syndrome in onco-hematology patients.

BACKGROUND: Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is a common adverse event of CAR T cell or bispecific antibody (bsAb) therapy. Anti-IL6/IL6R drugs are used in the management of auto-immune diseases. Some reports showed increased risk of bacterial infection in this context. In onco-hematology, there are few data about the occurrence of infection after administration of an anti-IL6/IL6R for CRS. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients treated in Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus between 2018 and 2021, who received anti-IL6/IL6R for CRS due to bsAb in phase I clinical trials or adoptive cellular therapy (ACT). We constituted a control group including all the patients treated in the same clinical trials or standard of care ACT, naïve of anti-IL6/IL6R. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients have been included. In the anti-IL6/IL6R group (n = 26), five patients developed a grade 2 to 5 infection within a month after anti-IL6/IL6R treatment, including two grade 5 infections. In the control group (n = 26), only one patient had a grade 3 infection. The two patients who had grade 5 infections were treated for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), one with bsAb and the other with CAR T cell. Fifty percent (3/6) of DLBCL patients who received an anti-IL6/IL6R presented an infection, one of which was a grade 5. In solid tumor patients treated with bsAb and anti-IL6/IL6R, only one patient (/9, 11%) developed a grade 2 viral infection. CONCLUSION: It seems that the use of anti-IL6/IL6R in CRS secondary to bsAb administration in solid tumors patients does not significantly increase the risk of infection, as opposed to DLBCL patients where secondary infection might be a concern.

Clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA sequencing with a large panel: a National Center for Precision Medicine (PRISM) study.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) sequencing is a promising approach for tailoring therapy in patients with cancer. We report hereby the results from a prospective study where we investigated the impact of comprehensive molecular profiling of ctDNA in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Genomic analysis was performed using the FoundationOne Liquid CDx Assay [324 genes, tumor mutational burden (TMB), microsatellite instability status]. Each individual genomic report was reviewed and discussed weekly by a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB). Actionable targets were classified by ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) tier leading to molecular-based treatment suggestions wherever it was possible. RESULTS: Between December 2020 and November 2021, 1772 patients with metastatic solid tumors underwent molecular profiling. Median time to assay results was 12 days. Results were contributive for 1658 patients (94%). At least one actionable target was detected in 1059 patients (64%) with a total of 1825 actionable alterations including alteration of the DNA damage repair response pathway (n = 336, 18%), high TMB (>16 mutations/Mb; n = 243, 13%), PIK3CA mutations (n = 150, 8%), ERBB family pathway alterations (n = 127, 7%), PTEN alterations (n = 95, 5%), FGFR alterations (n = 67, 4%) and MET activations (n = 13, 0.7%). The MTB recommended a matched therapy for 597 patients (56%) with a total of 819 therapeutic orientations: clinical trials (n = 639, 78%), off-label/compassionate use (n = 81, 10%), approved drug (n = 51, 6%), and early access program (n = 48, 6%). In total, 122 patients (21%) were treated. Among the assessable patients (n = 107), 4 (4%) had complete response, 35 (33%) had partial response, 27 (25%) had stable disease, and 41 (38%) a progressive disease as best response. The median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 4.7 months (95% confidence interval 2.7-6.7 months) and 8.3 months (95% confidence interval 4.7-11.9 months) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ctDNA sequencing with a large panel is an efficient approach to match patients with advanced cancer with targeted therapies.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2022-2024: Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).

OBJECTIVE: To update the ccAFU recommendations for the management of bladder tumours that do not infiltrate the bladder muscle (NBMIC). METHODS: A systematic review (Medline) of the literature from 2020 to 2022 was performed, taking account of the diagnosis, treatment options and surveillance of NMIBC, while evaluating the references with their levels of evidence. RESULTS: The diagnosis of NMIBC (Ta, T1, CIS) is made after complete full-thickness tumour resection. The use of bladder fluorescence and the indication of a second look (4-6 weeks) help to improve the initial diagnosis. The EORTC score is used to assess the risk of recurrence and/or tumour progression. Through the stratification of patients in low, intermediate and high-risk categories, adjuvant treatment can be proposed: intravesical chemotherapy (immediate postoperative, initiation regimen) or BCG (initiation and maintenance regimen) instillations, or even the indication of cystectomy for BCG-resistant patients. CONCLUSION: Updating the ccAFU recommendations should contribute to improving patient management, as well as the diagnosis and treatment of NMIBC.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2022-2024: Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (MIBC).

OBJECTIVE: To update the CCAFU recommendations for the management of muscle invasive bladder carcinoma (MIBC). METHODS: A systematic review (Medline) of the literature from 2020 to 2022 was performed taking account of the diagnosis, treatment options and surveillance of NMIBC and MIBC, while evaluating the references with their levels of evidence. RESULTS: MIBC is diagnosed after the most complete tumour resection possible. MIBC grading is based on CTU along with chest CT. Multiparametric pelvic MRI could be an alternative. Cystectomy with extensive lymphadenectomy is the gold standard treatment for non-metastatic MIBC. It should be preceded by platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients in good general health with satisfactory renal function. Enterocystoplasty is proposed in men and women in the absence of contraindications and when the urethral resection is negative on extemporaneous examination. Otherwise, transileal cutaneous ureterostomy is the recommended method of urinary diversion. Inclusion of all patients in an ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol is recommended. For metastatic MIBC, first line treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy (GC or MVAC) is recommended, if general health (PS>1) and renal function (clearance>60mL/min) so allow (only 50% of the cases). Pembrolizumab immunotherapy has demonstrated an overall survival benefit in second-line treatment. CONCLUSION: Updating the ccAFU recommendations should contribute to improving patient management, as well as the diagnosis and decision-making concerning MIBC treatment.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2022-2024: Upper urinary tract urothelial cancer (UTUC).

INTRODUCTION: The aim was to propose an update of the French Urology Association Cancer Committee (ccAFU) Recommendations on the management of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas (UUT-UC). METHODS: A systematic Medline search was performed between 2020 and 2022, taking account of the diagnosis, treatment options and follow-up of UUT-UC, while evaluating the references with their levels of evidence. RESULTS: The diagnosis of this rare pathology is based on CTU acquisition during excretion and flexible ureterorenoscopy with histological biopsies. Radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) remains the gold standard for surgical treatment. Nevertheless conservative treatment can be discussed for low risk lesions: tumour of low-grade, with no infiltration on imaging, unifocal<2cm, eligible for full treatment therefore requiring close endoscopic surveillance by flexible ureteroscopy in compliant patients. After RNU, postoperative instillation of chemotherapy is recommended to reduce the risk of recurrence in the bladder. Adjuvant chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits compared to surveillance after RNU for tumours (pT2-T4 N0-3 M0). CONCLUSION: These updated recommendations should contribute to improving not only patients' level of care, but also the diagnosis and decision-making concerning treatment for UUT-UC.

[Guidelines from the cancer (CC-AFU) and infection disease (CI-AFU) committees of the French Association of Urology for the management of adverse events and complications of BCG]. / Recommandations des Comités de cancérologie (CC-AFU) et d'infectiologie (CI-AFU) de l'Association française d'urologie pour la prise en charge effets indésirables et complications du BCG.

INTRODUCTION: Intravesical instillations of BCG are recommended for the treatment of high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. However, their prolonged use remains limited by the associated potentially serious adverse effects or complications. The purpose of this article was to provide updated recommendations for the diagnosis and management of adverse events (AEs) or complications of intravesical BCG instillations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of the literature in Medline (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and Embase (http://www.embase.com) using the following MeSH keywords or a combination of these keywords: "bladder," "BCG," "complication," "toxicity," "adverse events," "prevention," and "treatment". RESULTS: AEs or complications of BCG included genitourinary and systemic symptoms. The most common complications (cystitis, moderate fever) should be treated symptomatically and may require adjustment to allow patients to have the most complete BCG treatment possible. Serious complications are rare but must be identified promptly because of the life-threatening nature of the disease. Their management is based on the combination of anti-tuberculosis treatments, anti-inflammatory drugs and the definitive discontinuation of BCG. CONCLUSION: The management of BCG AEs requires early identification, rational and effective treatment if necessary, and discussion of the continuation of treatment for each situation.

[Guidelines from the cancer committee of the French Association of Urology (CC-AFU) for adequate intravesical instillations of Mitomycin C, Epirubicin, and BCG for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer]. / Recommandations du Comité de cancérologie de l'Association Française d'Urologie (CC-AFU) pour la bonne pratique des instillations intravésicales de mitomycine C, d'épirubicine et de BCG pour le traitement des tumeurs de la vessie n'infiltrant pas le muscle (TVNIM).

INTRODUCTION: Intravesical instillations of mitomycin C, epirubicin and BCG are considered as the standard treatment for most patients diagnosed with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. These guidelines aim to optimize the adjuvant intravesical treatment in order to increase the efficacy and lower the morbidity associated with its administration. METHODS: We conducted a daily practice survey, an online search of available national regulation recommendations and of published guidelines. A bibliography search in French and English using Medline® and Embase® with the keywords "BCG"; "mitomycin C"; "epirubicin"; "bladder"; "complication"; "toxicity"; "adverse reaction"; "prevention" and "treatment" was performed November 2021. RESULTS: Patient information should be given by the attending physician before the first intravesical instillation. A medical exam to look for specific contraindications is also mandatory to select adequate candidates. Intravesical instillations should be delivered in health-care centers where urologic endoscopic procedures are routinely performed. Attending urologist or specialized nurse should check for negative pretreatment urine test. Intravesical instillation can only be delivered after bladder catheter has been inserted in the bladder without any injury of the lower urinary tract. The pharmaceutical agent should be kept in the bladder for two hours. Finally, voiding within the 6hours following intravesical instillations should be done in the sitting position and the patient should drink at least 2 liters of water per day for 2 days. CONCLUSION: The delivery of intravesical instillations of mitomycin C, epirubicin and BCG should follow a standardized procedure for better efficacy and lower morbidity.

Single-cell DNA-seq depicts clonal evolution of multiple driver alterations in osimertinib-resistant patients.

BACKGROUND: The development of targeted agents, such as osimertinib for EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has drastically improved patient outcome, but tumor resistance eventually always occurs. In osimertinib-resistant NSCLC, the emergence of a second molecular driver alteration (such as ALK, RET, FGFR3 fusions or BRAF, KRAS mutations) has been described. Whether those alterations and the activating EGFR mutations occur within a single cancer cell or in distinct cell populations is largely debated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumor sequencing was used to identify the acquired resistance mechanisms to osimertinib in the MATCH-R trial (NCT0251782). We implemented single-cell next-generation sequencing to investigate tumor heterogeneity on patient's frozen tissues in which multiple alterations have been identified. Patient-derived models, cell lines, and patient-derived xenografts were exposed to specific inhibitors to investigate combination treatment strategies. RESULTS: Among the 45 patients included in MATCH-R who progressed on osimertinib, 9 developed a second targetable alteration (n = 2 FGFR3-TACC3, n = 1 KIF5B-RET, n = 1 STRN-ALK fusions; n = 2 BRAFV600E, n = 1 KRASG12V, n = 1 KRASG12R, n = 1 KRASG12D mutations). Single-cell analysis revealed that the two driver alterations coexist within one single cancer cell in the four patients whose frozen samples were fully contributive. A high degree of heterogeneity within samples and sequential acquisitions of molecular events were highlighted. A combination treatment concomitantly targeting the two driver alterations was required on the corresponding patient-derived models to restore cell sensitivity, which was consistent with clinical data showing efficacy of brigatinib in the patient with ALK fusion after progression to osimertinib and crizotinib administered sequentially. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct molecular driver alterations at osimertinib resistance coexist with initial EGFR mutations in single cancer cells. The clonal evolution of cancer cell populations emphasized their heterogeneity leading to osimertinib relapse. Combining two targeted treatments is effective to achieve clinical benefit.

Plasma proteomics identifies leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) as a novel predictive biomarker of immune-checkpoint blockade resistance.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) are now widely used in oncology. Most patients, however, do not derive benefit from these agents. Therefore, there is a crucial need to identify novel and reliable biomarkers of resistance to such treatments in order to prescribe potentially toxic and costly treatments only to patients with expected therapeutic benefits. In the wake of genomics, the study of proteins is now emerging as the new frontier for understanding real-time human biology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the proteome of plasma samples, collected before treatment onset, from two independent prospective cohorts of cancer patients treated with ICB (discovery cohort n = 95, validation cohort n = 292). We then investigated the correlation between protein plasma levels, clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival and overall survival by Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: By using an unbiased proteomics approach, we show that, in both discovery and validation cohorts, elevated baseline serum level of leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) is associated with a poor clinical outcome in cancer patients treated with ICB, independently of other prognostic factors. We also demonstrated that the circulating level of LIF is inversely correlated with the presence of tertiary lymphoid structures in the tumor microenvironment. CONCLUSION: This novel clinical dataset brings strong evidence for the role of LIF as a potential suppressor of antitumor immunity and suggests that targeting LIF or its pathway may represent a promising approach to improve efficacy of cancer immunotherapy in combination with ICB.